Supreme Court case information
Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing.
Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.
All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.
Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v New Zealand Transport Agency
Case number
SC 25/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal to this Court is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v New Zealand Transport Agency [2021] NZHC 390).
B The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to dismiss the appeal against the decision of the Board of Inquiry.
28 May 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The matter is remitted to the Board of Inquiry for reconsideration in line with the terms of this judgment.
C Costs are reserved.
11 April 2024
__________________________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar. We allow for second counsel.
B The High Court should now determine costs in that Court in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
7 November 2024
B The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to dismiss the appeal against the decision of the Board of Inquiry.
28 May 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The matter is remitted to the Board of Inquiry for reconsideration in line with the terms of this judgment.
C Costs are reserved.
11 April 2024
__________________________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar. We allow for second counsel.
B The High Court should now determine costs in that Court in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
7 November 2024
Date of hearing
16 November 2021
- 18 November 2021
Judges
CJ Winkelmann, Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 - 18 November 2021 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 16 - 18 November (PDF, 425 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 26 (PDF, 288 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme Court - order made
Case name
Poutama Kaitiaki Charitable Trust and D & T Pascoe v Taranaki Regional Council, New Plymouth District Council and New Zealand Transport Agency
Case number
SC 31/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicants must pay three sets of costs: $500 jointly to the first and second respondents, $2,500 to the third respondent and $1,500 to the interested party.
15 July 2021
_____________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 15 July 2021 (Poutama Kaitiaki Charitable Trust v Taranaki Regional Council [2021] NZSC 87) is allowed only to make the changes identified at [2] below.
B The [2021] NZSC 87 judgment is reissued with these changes.
23 September 2021
____________________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 15 July 2021 (Poutama Kaitiaki Charitable Trust v Taranaki Regional Council [2021] NZSC 87) as reissued on 23 September 2021 is dismissed.
8 November 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicants must pay three sets of costs: $500 jointly to the first and second respondents, $2,500 to the third respondent and $1,500 to the interested party.
15 July 2021
_____________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 15 July 2021 (Poutama Kaitiaki Charitable Trust v Taranaki Regional Council [2021] NZSC 87) is allowed only to make the changes identified at [2] below.
B The [2021] NZSC 87 judgment is reissued with these changes.
23 September 2021
____________________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 15 July 2021 (Poutama Kaitiaki Charitable Trust v Taranaki Regional Council [2021] NZSC 87) as reissued on 23 September 2021 is dismissed.
8 November 2021
High Court decision
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Shane Dromgool, Dorothy Dromgool, Alan Darvall Poulton, Jennifer Poulton and Newman Farms Limited v Minister for Land Information
Case number
SC 32/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Minister for Land Information v Dromgool [2021] NZCA 44). The approved question is:
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the role and obligations of the Minister for Land Information in deciding an application under s 186(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and, in particular, whether the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed taking is fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the network utility operator or whether it is sufficient that the Minister is satisfied the proposed taking is capable of meeting that test.
B The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
24 June 2021
__________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
22 December 2022
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the role and obligations of the Minister for Land Information in deciding an application under s 186(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and, in particular, whether the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed taking is fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the network utility operator or whether it is sufficient that the Minister is satisfied the proposed taking is capable of meeting that test.
B The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
24 June 2021
__________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
22 December 2022
Date of hearing
22 March 2022
Judges
Winkelman CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 March 2022 (PDF, 588 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 157 (PDF, 202 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Kim Dotcom v United States of America and District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 47/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an order that, pending determination of the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to this Court, the hearing in the Court of Appeal on 6 May 2021 be adjourned until after the determination of the application for leave to appeal (and the appeal, if leave is granted) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
4 May 2021
B There is no order as to costs.
4 May 2021
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Richard Ciliang Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited (in Liquidation) And Ors
Case number
SC 48/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal and Cross Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq) [2021] NZCA 99).
B Leave to cross appeal is granted.
6 September 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeals by the directors are dismissed.
B The cross-appeal by the liquidators is allowed to the extent that in lieu of the remittal of the proceedings back to the High Court, we order the directors to contribute to the assets of Mainzeal $39.8 million together with interest at prescribed rates since 28 February 2013 with the liabilities of Dame Jennifer Shipley and Messrs Tilby and Gomm each limited to $6.6 million and interest.
C The directors are to pay costs in the sum of $65,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
25 August 2023
B Leave to cross appeal is granted.
6 September 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeals by the directors are dismissed.
B The cross-appeal by the liquidators is allowed to the extent that in lieu of the remittal of the proceedings back to the High Court, we order the directors to contribute to the assets of Mainzeal $39.8 million together with interest at prescribed rates since 28 February 2013 with the liabilities of Dame Jennifer Shipley and Messrs Tilby and Gomm each limited to $6.6 million and interest.
C The directors are to pay costs in the sum of $65,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
25 August 2023
Date of hearing
07 March 2022
- 11 March 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 - 11 March 2022 (PDF, 2 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing Mon 7 March - Fri 11 March 2022 (PDF, 436 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 113 (PDF, 342 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Bruce Moncrief-Spittle and David Cumin v Regional Facilities Auckland Ltd and Auckland Council
Case number
SC 57/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Moncrief Spittle v Regional Facilities Auckland Ltd [2021] NZCA 142).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against the High Court’s substantive decision.
5 August 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to adduce the affidavit of 18 February 2022 of David Cumin is declined.
C Costs are reserved.
5 December 2022
_____________________________________________________________________________
The appellants must pay the respondents costs of $10,000.
14 March 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against the High Court’s substantive decision.
5 August 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to adduce the affidavit of 18 February 2022 of David Cumin is declined.
C Costs are reserved.
5 December 2022
_____________________________________________________________________________
The appellants must pay the respondents costs of $10,000.
14 March 2023
Date of hearing
21 February 2022
- 22 February 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook . O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 - 22 February 2022 (PDF, 770 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 21 February 2022 (PDF, 188 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 138 (PDF, 193 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Christopher Hatley v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
8 July 2021
B We make an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
8 July 2021
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHRISTOPHER HATLEY v R [2021] NZSC 82 [8 July 2021] (PDF, 43 KB)
Case name
Melco Property Holdings (NZ) Limited v Anthony John Hall
Case number
SC 64/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Ltd v Hall [2021] NZCA 184).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
Date of hearing
23 February 2022
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 February 2022 (PDF, 253 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 60 (PDF, 232 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
Gill Pizza Limited, Sandeep Singh, Jatinder Singh, Mandeep Singh and Malotia Limited v A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)
Case number
SC 67/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) v Gill Pizza Ltd [2021] NZCA 192).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
Date of hearing
04 November 2021
Judges
Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan , Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 November 2021 (PDF, 257 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 184 (PDF, 292 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Jamie Ronaki Kissling v The Queen
Case number
SC 69/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7 October 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7 October 2021
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 17 of 80